From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-06-07, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 21:00:40 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

The man pages for BSD have examples and are mostly coherent. But
also, BSD is not subject to the high rate of random change that
linux is, and consequently the documentation tends to stay correct
for longer.

And yet Linux can manage more disciplined changes that donrCOt do random things like break filesystem compatibility. This is why you can have
300 different Linux distros that will interoperate more freely than
half a dozen BSD variants are able to manage.

You are wrong there. With GNU/Linux it's always the same kernel.
Every BSD has a different userland *and* kernel.
They are different *operating systems* alltogether.
On 'disciplined changes', good luck when bcachefs or btrfs hit mainline.
I remind you all AX25 support has been axed away because of
'mah security'.
Meanwhile OpenBSD for instance still supports old FS', protocols
and whatnot. Even plain X, FVWM, CWM and NetBSD still supports
*old* and *weird* non-PC video cards just because with NetBSD
you can have a 'backup computer' anywhere, even with older consoles.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:07:22 -0000 (UTC), Anthk GM wrote:

On 2026-06-07, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

And yet Linux can manage more disciplined changes that donrCOt do
random things like break filesystem compatibility. This is why you
can have 300 different Linux distros that will interoperate more
freely than half a dozen BSD variants are able to manage.

You are wrong there. With GNU/Linux it's always the same kernel.
Every BSD has a different userland *and* kernel. They are different *operating systems* alltogether.

You are not refuting what I said, you are merely reinforcing my
point.

And all those different BSD variations are basically still addressing
the same sorts of applications -- desktop/workstation/server. Whereas
the single Linux kernel has found application in a much wider variety
of areas, like handheld and embedded devices, for example. Same
kernel. Same compatibility. No fragmentation.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

And all those different BSD variations are basically still addressing
the same sorts of applications -- desktop/workstation/server. Whereas
the single Linux kernel has found application in a much wider variety
of areas, like handheld and embedded devices, for example. Same
kernel. Same compatibility. No fragmentation.

BSDs definitely do embedded applications too. Apple have even used
NetBSD to run their Time Capsule devices:

https://www.osnews.com/story/144845/apple-wants-to-kill-your-time-capsule-but-they-run-netbsd-so-they-cant/

In the case of NetBSD, they support lots of obscure embedded
platforms which Linux doesn't (or doesn't want to anymore). Yet
the other BSDs can add their own features without needing to
support them on that many platforms, since they're not all part of
the same project. So I see some real up-sides to the BSD
fragmentation really.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-07-01, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:07:22 -0000 (UTC), Anthk GM wrote:

On 2026-06-07, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

And yet Linux can manage more disciplined changes that donrCOt do
random things like break filesystem compatibility. This is why you
can have 300 different Linux distros that will interoperate more
freely than half a dozen BSD variants are able to manage.

You are wrong there. With GNU/Linux it's always the same kernel.
Every BSD has a different userland *and* kernel. They are different
*operating systems* alltogether.

You are not refuting what I said, you are merely reinforcing my
point.

And all those different BSD variations are basically still addressing
the same sorts of applications -- desktop/workstation/server. Whereas
the single Linux kernel has found application in a much wider variety
of areas, like handheld and embedded devices, for example. Same
kernel. Same compatibility. No fragmentation.

OpenBSD takes integration and correctness seriously; FreebSD compared
to that it's a nightmare of unconnected different, incompatible
firewalls, daemons and whatnot.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:19:03 -0000 (UTC), Anthk GM wrote:

On 2026-07-01, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:07:22 -0000 (UTC), Anthk GM wrote:

On 2026-06-07, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

And yet Linux can manage more disciplined changes that donrCOt do
random things like break filesystem compatibility. This is why
you can have 300 different Linux distros that will interoperate
more freely than half a dozen BSD variants are able to manage.

And all those different BSD variations are basically still
addressing the same sorts of applications --
desktop/workstation/server. Whereas the single Linux kernel has
found application in a much wider variety of areas, like handheld
and embedded devices, for example. Same kernel. Same compatibility.
No fragmentation.

OpenBSD takes integration and correctness seriously; FreebSD
compared to that it's a nightmare of unconnected different,
incompatible firewalls, daemons and whatnot.

And there you see, there is no unity even among BSD supporters. The fragmentation and lack of interoperability even extends to their user
base.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

And there you see, there is no unity even among BSD supporters. The >fragmentation and lack of interoperability even extends to their user
base.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I want a computer that does what I
want it to do, not what someone else does. Choices help.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 05:53:26 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:

One big issue with the BSD variants is that their filesystems are
not even compatible.

Even developing software to port between BSD variants is not
completely straightforward. Look at this <https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/compare/e149111f8f69ef291e4d8c166527257c3c86cea4...337c1519ed6ecdd123b07c56d0aceda169b6ae61>:

#if defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__)
...
#elif defined(__APPLE__)
...
#elif defined(__NetBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__OpenBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) && __FreeBSD_version >= 470000
...
#elif defined(__DragonFly__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__sun) || defined(__bsdi__) || defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__OS2__)
...

All the Linux distros work the same. But every single flavour of BSD
seems to do things differently.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

Even developing software to port between BSD variants is not
completely straightforward. Look at this <https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/compare/e149111f8f69ef291e4d8c166527257c3c86cea4...337c1519ed6ecdd123b07c56d0aceda169b6ae61>:

#if defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__)
...
#elif defined(__APPLE__)
...
#elif defined(__NetBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__OpenBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) && __FreeBSD_version >= 470000
...
#elif defined(__DragonFly__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__sun) || defined(__bsdi__) || defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__OS2__)
...

All the Linux distros work the same. But every single flavour of BSD
seems to do things differently.

Are you incapable of reading diffs, or is your case so weak you have to
rely on misleading examples? The link actually shows the removal of most
of the per-platform variation, creating the situation shown at:

https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/blob/master/src/bswap.h?ref_type=heads

...where there is zero variation between the BSDs.

(It could actually be simplified further: competent compilers generate
bswap or rotate instructions for the L49-51 macros, meaning there is no
real need to bother with the compiler intrinsics. See https://godbolt.org/z/89h6zvr4Y.)
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

Even developing software to port between BSD variants is not
completely straightforward. Look at this
<https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/compare/e149111f8f69ef291e4d8c166527257c3c86cea4...337c1519ed6ecdd123b07c56d0aceda169b6ae61>:

#if defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__)
...
#elif defined(__APPLE__)
...
#elif defined(__NetBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__OpenBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) && __FreeBSD_version >= 470000
...
#elif defined(__DragonFly__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__sun) || defined(__bsdi__) || defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__OS2__)
...

All the Linux distros work the same. But every single flavour of BSD
seems to do things differently.

Are you incapable of reading diffs, or is your case so weak you have to
rely on misleading examples? The link actually shows the removal of most
of the per-platform variation, creating the situation shown at:

https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/blob/master/src/bswap.h?ref_type=heads

...where there is zero variation between the BSDs.

(It could actually be simplified further: competent compilers generate
bswap or rotate instructions for the L49-51 macros, meaning there is no
real need to bother with the compiler intrinsics. See https://godbolt.org/z/89h6zvr4Y.)

You fell for one of Lawrence's many troll posts.

How capable he is of reading diffs we don't know, but posting
intentionally misleading material to support an opposite point is par
for the course for a great many trolls.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-07-31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 05:53:26 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:

One big issue with the BSD variants is that their filesystems are
not even compatible.

Even developing software to port between BSD variants is not
completely straightforward. Look at this
<https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/compare/e149111f8f69ef291e4d8c166527257c3c86cea4...337c1519ed6ecdd123b07c56d0aceda169b6ae61>:

#if defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__)
...
#elif defined(__APPLE__)
...
#elif defined(__NetBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__OpenBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) && __FreeBSD_version >= 470000
...
#elif defined(__DragonFly__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__sun) || defined(__bsdi__) || defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__OS2__)
...

All the Linux distros work the same. But every single flavour of BSD
seems to do things differently.

There are different OSes, not flavours. What did you expect?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 22:29:57 -0000 (UTC), Anthk GM wrote:

On 2026-07-31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

All the Linux distros work the same. But every single flavour of
BSD seems to do things differently.

There are different OSes, not flavours. What did you expect?

An end to the proprietary rCLUNIX warsrCY of the 1990s. Back then, their fragmentation allowed Microsoft to sweep in and swallow up the
workstation and server markets.

TodayrCOs rCLBSD warsrCY are allowing Linux to come in and swallow up the workstation and server markets. And they are leaving the BSDs
incapable of expanding into new markets that Linux is also taking
over, like mobile, embedded, storage appliances and supercomputers.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

TodayrCOs rCLBSD warsrCY are allowing Linux to come in and swallow up the >workstation and server markets. And they are leaving the BSDs
incapable of expanding into new markets that Linux is also taking
over, like mobile, embedded, storage appliances and supercomputers.

Why is this a bad thing?

I don't want an operating system that is "good for everything" because in
the long run trying to make a system good for everything makes it not very
good overall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Anthk GM <anthk@disroot.org> writes:

On 2026-07-31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Even developing software to port between BSD variants is not
completely straightforward. Look at this >><https://code.videolan.org/videolan/libdvdread/-/compare/e149111f8f69ef291e4d8c166527257c3c86cea4...337c1519ed6ecdd123b07c56d0aceda169b6ae61>:

#if defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__)
...
#elif defined(__APPLE__)
...
#elif defined(__NetBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__OpenBSD__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) && __FreeBSD_version >= 470000
...
#elif defined(__DragonFly__)
...
#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__sun) || defined(__bsdi__) || defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__OS2__)
...

All the Linux distros work the same. But every single flavour of BSD
seems to do things differently.

There are different OSes, not flavours. What did you expect?

As a reminder, this particular bit of rCLfragmentationrCY is imaginary. The link Lawrence quoted shows the VLC code (most of which was redundant
anyway) being replaced with a cross-platform alternative.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2